of outcomes across different methods and levels of analysis is a far more stringent criterion of validity than one method or level can yield alone.
Although, as Don Campbell notes in his Introduction, Muzafer Sherif was one of the founding fathers of present-day social psychology and has made notable contributions to the understanding of groups and attitude change since the Robbers Cave study, that study is the object of his greatest professional pride. Those of us who participated in the study with him, including Bob Hood and Carolyn Sherif, both now deceased, shared that pride.
The present ill health of both Professors Sherif and White have sadly made it appropriate for me to be the person from among us to work with members of the Wesleyan University Press in the publication of this book. From the time when he first contacted me a few months ago, Peter Potter, an editor of the Wesleyan University Press, and Jan Fitter, the copy editor for this volume, have made my job unusually easy. Our common objective has been to produce a book that in no way changes the basic content and intent of the earlier reports of the Robbers Cave experiment. Thanks are extended to the editors for their major contribution to this objective and, even more, for their unsolicited decision to publish this study in the first place.
Muzafer Sherif, Jack White, and I wish to extend special thanks to Don Campbell for his profound and thoughtful Introduction to this book. Certainly no one is better qualified to evaluate the study, either in terms of its methodology or its historical and current significance. Both by his historical sketch of Muzafer Sherif’s work prior to the Robbers Cave study and by his showing the connection between Sherif’s work and his own, Professor Campbell has created a context that should allow the reader to understand more deeply and appreciate more fully the concerns, methodology, and procedures of the study. In doing so, he also provided social psychology the bonus of making clear the relationship between the works of two of the field’s most notable figures.
With the publication of this book, students and other interested persons will be able to read a thorough and accurate account of the Robbers Cave study, which often has not been the case because of the scarcity of full reports of the study and of errors in some of its second- and third-hand descriptions.
O. J. Harvey
Boulder, Colorado
July 1987
Preface to the Instituteof Group Relations Editions
The report of this large-scale experiment dealing with factors conducive to conflict and cooperation between groups was first released in August 1954 and was sent in multilithed form to colleagues active in small group research. Since then, it has appeared in condensed form in books and journals and has been presented in lecture form at various universities and professional associations.
In view of numerous requests from colleagues engaged in small group research and instructors in institutions of higher learning, and the interest expressed by colleagues in political science, economics, and social work in the applicability of the concept of superordinate goals to intergroup problems in their own areas, the original report is being released now with very minor editorial changes.
Two new chapters have been added in the present volume. Chapter 1 presents a theoretical background related to small group research and to leads derived from the psychological laboratory. It was written originally at the request of Professor Fred Strodtbeck of the University of Chicago, editor for the special issue on small group research of the American Sociological Review (December 1954). This chapter summarizes our research program since the mid-thirties, which was initiated in an attempt to integrate field and laboratory approaches to the study of social interaction. Chapter 8 was written especially for this release to serve as a convenient summary of the theoretical and methodological orientation, the plan and procedures of the experiment, and the main findings, with special emphasis on the reduction of intergroup conflict through the introduction of a series of superordinate goals.
We are especially indebted to Mrs. Betty Frensley for her alert help in typing and other tasks connected with the preparation of this volume. Thanks are due Nicholas Pollis and John Reich for proofreading several chapters.
The experiment could not have been realized without the utmost dedication and concentrated efforts, beyond the call of duty, of my associates whose names appear with mine on the title page. However, as the person responsible for the proposal prepared for the Rockefeller Foundation in 1951 and with final responsibility in the actual conduct of the experiment and material included in the report, I absolve them from any blame for omissions or commissions in this presentation.
On this occasion it is a pleasure to acknowledge the understanding support and encouragement extended by the Social Science Division of the Rockefeller Foundation to this project on intergroup relations, a research area notably lacking in systematic experimental studies in spite of its overriding import in the present scheme of human relations.
This preface is being written with a heavy heart. The research program of which this experiment was an important part lost a great friend by the death of Carl I. Hovland, of Yale University, in April 1961. It was Carl Hovland who, from the very inception of the research project on intergroup relations in 1947, gave an understanding and insightful ear and an effective hand to its implementation. The give- and-take with his searching questions, wise counsel, and steadfast friendship through thick and thin will be sorely missed in the continuation of our research program.
Muzafer Sherif 1961
The chapters to follow report the main points of a large-scale experiment on intergroup relations. It was carried out as a part of the research program of the Intergroup Relations Project at the University of Oklahoma. In this first presentation, sufficient time and facilities were not available to make use of data contained in recorded tapes and half a dozen short moving picture reels. Nor was it found feasible to include introductory chapters surveying major theories on intergroup relations and elaborating the theoretical outlines of the present approach, which determined the formulation of the hypotheses advanced and the design of the study in successive stages. These are presented more fully in our Groups in Harmony and Tension (Harper 1953), which constituted the initial work unit in the present intergroup relations project.
Therefore, we here present a brief statement of the cardinal considerations that shaped the conception of this approach to the study of intergroup relations. It is not unfair to say that the major existing theories fall within two broad categories in terms of the emphasis placed in formulation of the problem and methods involved.
In one broad category of theories, the problems are expressed in terms of actualities of events in group relations as they exist in everyday life. On the whole, theories advanced by many social scientists fall in this broad category. In this concern over actualities, the problem is frequently not stated and discussion not developed in a way that can be tested rigorously. In the second broad category of theories, problems are stated and analysis carried out in terms of concepts and units of analysis that appear more rigorous. Theories coming from psychologists, and social scientists heavily influenced by them, fall within this broad category. In this line of approach, theories are advanced without due regard to actualities, and consequently they are plagued with serious questions of validity.
The present approach starts with a serious concern over the rise and functioning of actual small groups in social life. The hypotheses advanced are formulated on the basis of recurrent events reported in sociological accounts of small groups. Testing these hypotheses under conditions that appear natural to the subjects has been a theoretical and methodological consideration of prime importance, Therefore, a great point was made
